Cargando…
The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that complaints after episiotomy repair depend on the method and material used for repair. The objective of our study was to determine which of two frequently used suture materials, Monocryl® (poliglecaprone 25) and Vicryl Rapide™ (polyglactin 910), is superio...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5644141/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29037181 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1545-8 |
_version_ | 1783271673982615552 |
---|---|
author | Odijk, Roeland Hennipman, Bernadette Rousian, Melek Madani, Khadija Dijksterhuis, Marja de Leeuw, Jan Willem van Hof, Arjan |
author_facet | Odijk, Roeland Hennipman, Bernadette Rousian, Melek Madani, Khadija Dijksterhuis, Marja de Leeuw, Jan Willem van Hof, Arjan |
author_sort | Odijk, Roeland |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that complaints after episiotomy repair depend on the method and material used for repair. The objective of our study was to determine which of two frequently used suture materials, Monocryl® (poliglecaprone 25) and Vicryl Rapide™ (polyglactin 910), is superior for intracutaneous closure of the skin in mediolateral episiotomies. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial performed in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2013 250 primiparous women with uncomplicated mediolateral episiotomies were randomly allocated to intracutaneous skin closure with either Monocryl® or Vicryl Rapide™. All other layers were sutured with Vicryl 2-0 and Vicryl 0 in both groups. Pain scores and complications were documented using questionnaires during the first three months post partum. The primary outcome was pain 10 days after delivery in sitting position established by Visual Analogous Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were pain scores at different time points and reported complications such as infections, dehiscence and dyspareunia one day, 10 days, six weeks and three months after delivery. RESULTS: Of 250 allocated women 54% returned questionnaires. No statistical difference was found between both groups for the primary outcome (VAS 2,8 (95% CI 2,18-3,44) vs. VAS 2,5 (95% CI 2,00-2,98), p = 0,43). With regard to secondary outcomes only self-reported dehiscence was significantly different, favouring Monocryl® (10% vs. 25%, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Use of Monocryl® 3-0 and Vicryl Rapide™ 3-0 for intracutaneous closure of the skin after mediolateral episiotomy leads to equal pain scores ten days after delivery and therefore both materials may be considered for this use. Monocryl® 3-0 might be favourable over Vicryl Rapide™ 3-0 due to less self-reported dehiscence after intracutaneous closure of the skin in mediolateral episiotomies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered under trial nr. ISRCTN29869308 on 20-04-2016. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-017-1545-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5644141 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56441412017-10-26 The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial Odijk, Roeland Hennipman, Bernadette Rousian, Melek Madani, Khadija Dijksterhuis, Marja de Leeuw, Jan Willem van Hof, Arjan BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that complaints after episiotomy repair depend on the method and material used for repair. The objective of our study was to determine which of two frequently used suture materials, Monocryl® (poliglecaprone 25) and Vicryl Rapide™ (polyglactin 910), is superior for intracutaneous closure of the skin in mediolateral episiotomies. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial performed in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2013 250 primiparous women with uncomplicated mediolateral episiotomies were randomly allocated to intracutaneous skin closure with either Monocryl® or Vicryl Rapide™. All other layers were sutured with Vicryl 2-0 and Vicryl 0 in both groups. Pain scores and complications were documented using questionnaires during the first three months post partum. The primary outcome was pain 10 days after delivery in sitting position established by Visual Analogous Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were pain scores at different time points and reported complications such as infections, dehiscence and dyspareunia one day, 10 days, six weeks and three months after delivery. RESULTS: Of 250 allocated women 54% returned questionnaires. No statistical difference was found between both groups for the primary outcome (VAS 2,8 (95% CI 2,18-3,44) vs. VAS 2,5 (95% CI 2,00-2,98), p = 0,43). With regard to secondary outcomes only self-reported dehiscence was significantly different, favouring Monocryl® (10% vs. 25%, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Use of Monocryl® 3-0 and Vicryl Rapide™ 3-0 for intracutaneous closure of the skin after mediolateral episiotomy leads to equal pain scores ten days after delivery and therefore both materials may be considered for this use. Monocryl® 3-0 might be favourable over Vicryl Rapide™ 3-0 due to less self-reported dehiscence after intracutaneous closure of the skin in mediolateral episiotomies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered under trial nr. ISRCTN29869308 on 20-04-2016. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-017-1545-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5644141/ /pubmed/29037181 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1545-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Odijk, Roeland Hennipman, Bernadette Rousian, Melek Madani, Khadija Dijksterhuis, Marja de Leeuw, Jan Willem van Hof, Arjan The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial |
title | The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial |
title_full | The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial |
title_short | The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | move-trial: monocryl® vs. vicryl rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5644141/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29037181 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1545-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT odijkroeland themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT hennipmanbernadette themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT rousianmelek themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT madanikhadija themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT dijksterhuismarja themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT deleeuwjanwillem themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT vanhofarjan themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT odijkroeland movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT hennipmanbernadette movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT rousianmelek movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT madanikhadija movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT dijksterhuismarja movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT deleeuwjanwillem movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT vanhofarjan movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial |